SB 772 - Lack of 30.06/7 signs cannot be entered as evidence in a civil trial

[Papa_Tiger]

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=SB772

The fact that a business chose not to prohibit the licensed carry of handguns cannot be used against the person.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand all of the nuances of this proposed law.

[Flightmare]

I don't understand the intent or purpose of this proposed legislation.

Just pure speculation here. It's almost as if it is a way for a business to hide the fact they are a gun free zone in the event that something happens.
I suppose this is in response to the bill that would reduce/remove liability if a business is NOT posted. Just spitballing here. IANAL

[jerry_r60]

I don't understand the intent or purpose of this proposed legislation.

Just pure speculation here. It's almost as if it is a way for a business to hide the fact they are a gun free zone in the event that something happens.
I suppose this is in response to the bill that would reduce/remove liability if a business is NOT posted. Just spitballing here. IANAL

It sounds to me like it protects you if don't post and someone gets shot in your store and then they sue you saying you should have posted a 30.06 / 30.07 and didn't so you owe them.

[RoyGBiv]

From the OP link....

Relating to evidence in certain civil actions of a person's failure to forbid handguns on certain property.

ETA: May as well post the whole thing.

My translation.... If you get injured on a not-posted property, the fact that the property is not posted cannot be held against the property owner.
This is my OPINION. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn express last night either.

CHAPTER 95A. ACTIONS INVOLVING THE CARRYING OF HANDGUNS ON CERTAIN
PROPERTY
Sec. 95A.0001. EVIDENCE OF FAILURE TO FORBID HANDGUNS. The
fact that a card, sign, or other document described by Section
30.06(c)(3) or 30.07(c)(3), Penal Code, is not posted on the
property of a business or any other evidence that a person failed to
exercise the person's option to forbid the carrying of a handgun by
a license holder on the property:
(1) is not admissible as evidence in a trial on the
merits in an action:
(A) against a person, including a business or
other entity, who owns, controls, or manages the property; and
(B) in which the cause of action arises from an
injury sustained on the property; and
(2) does not support a cause of action described by
Subdivision (1) against a person described by that subdivision.
SECTION 2. Chapter 95A, Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
as added by this Act, does not apply to a cause of action that
accrued before the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.

[dlh]

Interesting.
I don't know that existing Texas law allows a cause of action for failure to post a 30.06/07 sign. I have never seen an appellate case addressing that. I suppose some inventive plaintiff's lawyer might "throw it in" the petition along with other allegations/causes of action.
Regardless, this legislation would make it clear that there is no cause of action for that.
Wonder if it will pass and be signed by the Governor?

[rtschl]

I wish all gun free zones were considered as liability enticements of crime just like a swimming pool without a fence is an liability enticement.

[jordanmills]

I wish all gun free zones were considered as liability enticements of crime just like a swimming pool without a fence is an liability enticement.

yep, I've said the same thing. That and that they are attractive nuisances.

[KLB]

I don't know that existing Texas law allows a cause of action for failure to post a 30.06/07 sign.

Texas allows a cause of action for negligence. If passed, this would keep a plaintiff's lawyer from arguing that a jury should find the business negligent for failure to post.

[KLB]

I wish all gun free zones were considered as liability enticements of crime just like a swimming pool without a fence is an liability enticement.

It will be interesting the day an HGL holder is wounded when someone shoots up a 30.06 location, and the holder testifies he left his gun in the car because of the sign. As far as I know, nothing stops a plaintiff's lawyer from arguing negligence based on failure to provide security after posting the sign.

[jordanmills]

I wish all gun free zones were considered as liability enticements of crime just like a swimming pool without a fence is an liability enticement.

It will be interesting the day an HGL holder is wounded when someone shoots up a 30.06 location, and the holder testifies he left his gun in the car because of the sign. As far as I know, nothing stops a plaintiff's lawyer from arguing negligence based on failure to provide security after posting the sign.

Or the suit from the person who is injured or loses a family member because of a gun stolen from or with a car outside of the same kind of location.

[gtolbert09]

Tennesse did some thing similar back in 2016

https://www.bakerdonelson.com/Tennessee ... -Liability

[s3779m]

I wish all gun free zones were considered as liability enticements of crime just like a swimming pool without a fence is an liability enticement.

Wish our legislature would work on this one.